Comments on: Can You Hear Me? Then Get Off My Phone!

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is implicit in this statement that any just search shall require a warrant, and explicit what the requirements for such a warrant are. These requirements were not met. His actions were illegal. His actions require impeachment, removal from office, and prosecution to the full extent of the law.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I've heard (but cannot confirm) that Roman Catholic groups have been targeted for examination because the Catholic church leans toward "communism." Any comments on this?

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Given the Church's teachings on subsidiarity, I find that unlikely.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

The Catholic Workers have been under surveilance by the FBI, not the NSA.

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Without speaking specifically toward Phonetapgate (which this may become) or to the morality of actions like it, I do have a couple thoughts:

1) whether or not the US Constituion forbids such actions, there is no natural right, inscribed onto the Cosmos, to inviolable privacy of phone conversations;

2) the small numbers of people being monitored (if such numbers are true) suggest both prudence and necessity;

3) it is in the perceived interests of (most of) the American people, that the American Empire survive;

4) to maintain the existence and hegemony of the American Empire, the US gov't has performed many unsavory (and objectively immoral) actions over the years, e.g., in its Indian policies, various military "maneuvers" of WWII. In comparison, the NSA tapping a few phones (which we have to admit is not objectively immoral) doesn't even rise to the level of a blip on the radar screen;

5) if you want perfect freedom from gov't intrusion, i.e., a land where the theory matches up with the practice, then you probably want to live in a small insignificant principality nestled in the Alps, and not in the richest Empire in the history of the world.

Now whether the US need or ought be such an empire... THAT (to me) is the interesting question.

My $0.02

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Steve, your reasoning is largely flawed.
1)Our right to not have private documents examined without due process is as fundamental as any of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution. There is no reason to separate this out and say it is somehow less innate than other rights.
2-5) There is absolutely no situations where a legitimate wiretap needed to protect our country would require such a lawless action.
We have a closed court in which to secret warrants based upon classified intelligence. If there is need for an immediate tap it can be legally done so provided that a warrant is sought wihtin 72 hours.
There are only two reasons he could be resorting to such procedures. Either he is using them to pursue unwarranted surveillance, or he simply has a pathological arrogance that compels him to extend his power illegally. Or possibly some combination of the two.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

It is the pattern that bothers me. The current administration's response to everything is always to try to increase the power of the presidency.

And they planned to do it before 911 in at least one case. The idea to change our foreign policy to preemption was in the works before 911, but it was easily accepted afterward.

I am not necessarrly against the Patrioit Act on a countinued temporary basis, but I have not head of one case where it allowed us to foil a terror plot. But accoring to Bush "it is an important good law". Basically he said trust me.

By: john

john — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Just as a note it's important to be clear that these wire taps without warrants were not authorized by the Patriot Act. There are two distinct issues. One of a questionable law and the other of an illegal action.

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

John:

1) you simply misunderstand what I mean by "natural right", i.e., rights that go beyond mere contract, that would exist even if the Magna Carta or John Locke or James Madison had never existed.

2-5) you seem to miss my point that there is law higher (or lower, depending on your perspective) than mere postive law, i.e., the law of necessity, which is really a simple corollary to the law of raw power. If we lived in a more noble society, and were perhaps surrounded by more or less equally noble societies, then perhaps (perhaps) security and the continued existence of the Empire could be ensured by strict adherence of all parties to positive law. Unfortunately we don't live in such a society, and haven't since the time of Monroe arguably Jefferson, but rather a World Power with "strategic interests" (to be understood as either "exploitable resources" or "competitors in exploitation") in very nearly every region of the world (save perhaps for East Africa). Like it or not, we have all shared in the fruits of American enforcement of its "strategic interests", and we shouldn't therefore complain too loudly when a few folks get a bloody nose.

Yes, Christians are (and ought to be) to the Empire as the soul is to the body. But here I think the "soul" is most righteously employed in curtailing those "strategic interests" to a more reasonable level.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

My point was that these searches in no way advance "the Empire". This has nothing to do with America's security nor with it's place in the world.

This is not a situation to be cavalier and say that we are doing what is necessary to advance our nation.
It does nothign to advance our nation and has the potential to do a great deal to rot our nation.

And as far as natural rights go. There's no need to enter into fuzzy concepts of rights not enumerated. The base assumption of our system is that the rights enumerated by our laws are a set entirely within the set of natural laws. If we have a grey area in our law we must turn back to those principles, but in a clear cut case there is no need to go to such effort.